Fat Chance of restoring the Constitution with 2 dykes and sell out Roberts.
The Court is now 5 - 4 liberal, and it will get worse.
Do they mean the plain words on the parchment? Or is there wiggle room?
I'm less than impressed with many of his decisions.
/johnny
I am really afraid or maybe I should say sure that the Constitution as we know it has been abandoned! It matters little these days whether the Supreme Court or anyone else agrees or disagrees.
The only thing that will restore the Constitution seems to be another uprising of the people that support it. Not sure that it could happen today though - too many passive folks just watching as our liberties continue to erode. When it happens slowly, it is not noticed.
The Constitution has been dead since the New Deal. All it is now is a fig leaf for statism.
could this be what Mark Levin is hinting at?
Prayers for the Supreme Court justices.
A man that ought to know has just given a nod that any effort to restore our freedoms is warranted. He, a man that adjudicates our rights from the highest court of the land, has clearly stated that he is not confident that our freedoms, our rights, can be restored in this corrupt system, including within his own court. Should there be a revolution of any sort, we have the moral high ground.
Hang in there, Antonin.
We need to stay on the bench for another 4 years.
The difference between originalists and activists in the Courts is this:
Originalists hear the case first and then render their opinion.
Activists render their opinion first and then hear the case.
Here's what's NOT in Scalia's new book:
Scalia’s just being honest - and probably improving his armory at the same time.
'Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions insisted “that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are [and] that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens.”' --Justice Scalia, Arizona v. US.But do you think that Jefferson's extract would have had more impact if Scalia had not stopped short of Jefferson's inclusion of the context 10th Amendment in the sentence immediately following in Jefferson's writing?
"4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.So while Scalia expresses doubt that the Constitution can be restored to its original meaning, his omission of a reference to a key amendment is arguably evidence thet he is actually helping to dilute the Constitution.
We don’t need to add amendments to get back to the rule of law, we just need the states to get some spine.